Western culture was created a result of the synthesis of two great strains in the history of thought, Hellenism and Hebraism, as Matthew Arnold noted long ago. On one side are the ancient Greeks, who thought very deeply about sociology, politics, science and philosophy, but neglected religion, and on the other side are the Hebrews who thought deeply about the nature of God and morality and took religion very seriously. The record of their reflections created the most advanced body of religious thought the world has ever known.

When this religious thought, further enlarged by the last of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, was subsequently Hellenized, the resulting synthesis created a body of though...

Western culture was created a result of the synthesis of two great strains in the history of thought, Hellenism and Hebraism, as Matthew Arnold noted long ago. On one side are the ancient Greeks, who thought very deeply about sociology, politics, science and philosophy, but neglected religion, and on the other side are the Hebrews who thought deeply about the nature of God and morality and took religion very seriously. The record of their reflections created the most advanced body of religious thought the world has ever known.

When this religious thought, further enlarged by the last of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, was subsequently Hellenized, the resulting synthesis created a body of thought that one might regard as a new social order, one intensely focused on individualism - individual salvation and individual self-realization. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, as part of the process of individual self-actualization is taken for granted in western society and yet this most basic aspect of western civilization is continually miscomprehended by the Muslim world because the goal of Muslim society is in diametric opposition to individualism

We shouldn't marginalized Said just yet. The idea of Orientalism is not only extremely potent, but still in action. The way we romanticize exotic cultures by reducing them to one dimensional stereotypes is at work all around us. It is one of the most relevant theories in understanding our fetishism for various eastern cultures, and even the way other countries think of us.

While intellectuals back on the campuses may argue, intellectuals in the field should be able to see that the theory of Orientalism is based on observation, not conjecture.

Foucault, for instance, was fatally flawed in his reasoning because of his lack of first hand research. Said, however, succeeds in creating a theory ...

We shouldn't marginalized Said just yet. The idea of Orientalism is not only extremely potent, but still in action. The way we romanticize exotic cultures by reducing them to one dimensional stereotypes is at work all around us. It is one of the most relevant theories in understanding our fetishism for various eastern cultures, and even the way other countries think of us.

While intellectuals back on the campuses may argue, intellectuals in the field should be able to see that the theory of Orientalism is based on observation, not conjecture.

Foucault, for instance, was fatally flawed in his reasoning because of his lack of first hand research. Said, however, succeeds in creating a theory that can apply the ideas of post modernism directly to something more substantial, and there by clearing it of a lot of the racism inherent in the French ideas of the Nobel Savage, etc.

It is also interesting that a one dimensional narrative reducing complex human beings down to a stereotypical metanarrative of the impenetrable and exotic is exactly the strategy that critics like the author here have used to dismiss Said.

I would not marginalise Edward Said or Ibn Warraq if I had the ability and inclination to study both as participants. (That the former influenced and enthused me in my youth was partly because I was enthusiastic for such influences; the latter I do not know well at all. Certainly, I am not in a position to make a polarised value judgment. I'm pleading ignorance!) I think I agree with most of the above comment's general thrust (and couldn't begin to examine the history of debate around Said). What struck me in the short extract here was the general point about a set of monolithic core values (such a claim for western 'essence' while easy to deconstruct nevertheless manifests implicitly in cer...

I would not marginalise Edward Said or Ibn Warraq if I had the ability and inclination to study both as participants. (That the former influenced and enthused me in my youth was partly because I was enthusiastic for such influences; the latter I do not know well at all. Certainly, I am not in a position to make a polarised value judgment. I'm pleading ignorance!) I think I agree with most of the above comment's general thrust (and couldn't begin to examine the history of debate around Said). What struck me in the short extract here was the general point about a set of monolithic core values (such a claim for western 'essence' while easy to deconstruct nevertheless manifests implicitly in certain taken for granted perspectives, though again I lack either inclination or the beginnings of ability to say anything worthwhile about such a task of deconstruction).

No, don't sell yourself short, you have a point. That's the problem with Said, and most other post-modernists (with the possible exception of Umberto Eco who remains very sly and indirect by writing in fiction...)

Although the post modernists decried monolithic simplifications of the complex and polymorphic reality, their books themselves are inherently also monolithic simplifications. Such is the challenge of anchoring an idea to the world, and trapping such elusive feelings in text on the page. As Miguel de Unammuno said, the intellect is drawn to that which is dead because that which is living escapes it. Our mind seeks to congeal reality into something tangible and comprehensible, but i...

No, don't sell yourself short, you have a point. That's the problem with Said, and most other post-modernists (with the possible exception of Umberto Eco who remains very sly and indirect by writing in fiction...)

Although the post modernists decried monolithic simplifications of the complex and polymorphic reality, their books themselves are inherently also monolithic simplifications. Such is the challenge of anchoring an idea to the world, and trapping such elusive feelings in text on the page. As Miguel de Unammuno said, the intellect is drawn to that which is dead because that which is living escapes it. Our mind seeks to congeal reality into something tangible and comprehensible, but in doing so, we inevitably do it a disservice.

I see they key shortcomings in Said as being two-fold: First, that he applied his theory to generally, suggesting it was something inherent in all western thought and giving it pride of place as a sort of 'primary paradigm,' when in fact it is simply one of many factors. Second, that he did not apply his theory generally enough, overlooking the fact that Orientals "Orientalize" the West as well, and inevitably, we "Orientalize" each other.

Nowhere is this more evident than in China, which has fetishized America around Shangri-la style myths that America is a land of wealth and perfection, where people lack all the flaws that the Chinese themselves have, and people who live out the dreams that the average Chinese person cannot.

I won't call this reverse Orientalism, because once again that would imply that it originally came from the west. I think this is simply something inherent in the human tendency to dream, and enhanced by the fact that we can't see the dirt and the frowns of a country from thousands of miles away.

And again when we think of Europe as the quaint ginger-bread Old World we are Orientalizing our own heritage.

Thank you 10x. ouyangwulong. That is by far the basis of the best attitude to <Said> i have engaged with. As a professor of comparative literature, Said as I said had a big influence on my formation; I admired his east-west practical work; I appreciate his afterword on responses to Orientalism in the edition i have. He was important with many others in disentangling the monolithic, polarised and stereotypical responses to history and politics, so my caution in applying a firm statement on the close arguments of himself and others is, I believe. healthy and sound. I learned from him the powers and dangers of overviewing generalisations, and of the parallel powers and dangers inherent in close...

Thank you 10x. ouyangwulong. That is by far the basis of the best attitude to <Said> i have engaged with. As a professor of comparative literature, Said as I said had a big influence on my formation; I admired his east-west practical work; I appreciate his afterword on responses to Orientalism in the edition i have. He was important with many others in disentangling the monolithic, polarised and stereotypical responses to history and politics, so my caution in applying a firm statement on the close arguments of himself and others is, I believe. healthy and sound. I learned from him the powers and dangers of overviewing generalisations, and of the parallel powers and dangers inherent in close argument. That's his legacy to me, a way of thinking and approaching things in a fairly independent and robust way while being wary of engaging in ideological defences and attacks (which is not to say i disapprove of rhetoric! ).

Glad you enjoyed the website. It's my Winchester Mansion. It will never be finished.

But close argumentation is the key problem in general. Most of the people who pick bones with Said are engaged in very close argumentation indeed. So close, in fact, that I don't think they are talking about his ideas at all. Most of the criticism out there of Said come from Bernard Lewis and his gang, who interpret his critique of artistic and literary motifs only in terms of anti-imperialist politics or the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I think that's a shame, because I view Orientalism as a portrait of the way that our hopes and dreams interact with our ignorance and isolation. It is above all else a literary ...

Glad you enjoyed the website. It's my Winchester Mansion. It will never be finished.

But close argumentation is the key problem in general. Most of the people who pick bones with Said are engaged in very close argumentation indeed. So close, in fact, that I don't think they are talking about his ideas at all. Most of the criticism out there of Said come from Bernard Lewis and his gang, who interpret his critique of artistic and literary motifs only in terms of anti-imperialist politics or the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I think that's a shame, because I view Orientalism as a portrait of the way that our hopes and dreams interact with our ignorance and isolation. It is above all else a literary theory and I think dragging it into politics sullies it a little bit. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Said before he passed away and I was struck by how, though politically resolute he may have been, he remained firmly cultured and didn't stoop to the level of being some crass pundit.

I would make the case that it is essential to restrict our examination of his theories to the fields of the arts because of the very nature of Orientalism. At issue is the intersection of fantasy and reality, and how these fantasies affect our clarity in perceiving the world. The reason these fantasies may leap into our reality is that we create them in our arts and literature.

Political science is, or at least should be, more concrete stuff. It is not a creative art. Unlike art, the situations do not spring from our imaginations. Thus, if we are using our imagination to interpret a political crisis, Orientalism is not sufficient to critique the systemic problem, it is merely a symptom. At it's root is the issue that we should not be basing our politics on imagination and fantasy in the first place, be it Orientalist fantasy or any other kind! (Ehem, IRAQ WAR, *cough* *cough*)

Thus I think most of the critiques of Said come from mis-applying his theories in places they never belonged.